genocide law is history

For some background on this matter click here
And we also had some thread about this some time ago
overhere

You might already heard it on the news, and you might saw the death of this law coming.
But for me its a shock, the new government (just formed) is in charge one day and they immediatley banish this law.
The only good reason i can come up with is that the law had to be changed and to be improved to meet the demands of the US gov./president, but that would cost a lot of money and would take a huge amount of time.
So i think they just said we are having problems with it (US president, Collin Powell, Sharon etc) so lets get rid of it.

Maybe this law has only been used once or twicee i dont care, now its like saying go ahead and commit genocide, then these people flee to some other country and they are safe and cant be prosecuted....
Its like the thing with Sharon he committed or was involved in genocide back in the 80's, by using this law Belgium could prosecute him whenever he entered Belgium territory, now this is a fantasy, Sharon can come over to Belgium and do whatever he wants wherever he wants because he has diplomatic immunity....

Amnesty International (AI) already responded to this matter and say that this was a bad thing to do from the Belgian government.
Comment of AI about this law concecrning Sharon can be found here .

As i said in the beginning of this post we already had a thread about this once, then i asked what you thought about this law that was going to be banished.
Now that the law doesnt exist anymore, you will probably have other opinions or maybe not but i just want to know what you think of it.

For those of you that dont know the meaning of genocide heres what dictionary.com came up with:

Quote:

---

gen·o·cide :The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

---

I'm looking forward to your reactions.
PS: Do not turn this in any way into a flame ware or I will pm a mod asking to close the thread.

Ganglylamb.

I can give you a good reason why the law was replealed. It allowed citizens of Belgium to sue people in other countries.

Quote:

---

It allowed citizens of Belgium to sue people in other countries.

---

Not exactly, before you can sue someone with that law there has to be evidence (and if not the government investigates it), that the person in question did commit genocide or was involved with it.

::fictif thinking::
Its not like i say : "I sue ygfperson because he has been active in a movement that sprays graffiti all over town."
::::::::::::::::::::

Well I'm off coz im feeling not very well (ive been taking Lariam-- against malaria, and i just drunk some alcohol, wich appears to be having strange side-effects)

Laterz,

Gangylamb.

Well, it definitely had its teeth removed.
I'd say its good in principle. The problem is that it is one country's law, and suffers from (at least perceived) subjectivity in who it targets. A law like that would more properly belong in the UN.

Are you taking Lariam as a precautionary measure against Malaria?

This is bad. Lariam, (Meflaquin), is a powerful drug that should only really be used for treating people with a confirmed, (blood films), diagnosis. It has numerous serious side effects. I personally know a Swiss girl who took prophylactic Lariam when we were travelling together in Malawi - she had vision problems, which persisted for some 10 years after returning. I find it incredible that anyone going into an area for a year would be prescribed prophylactic Meflaquin. You should search the web for more information about this - this could really affect your health.

There is also the problem of exposing the parasites to the treatment drugs. By routinely dosing people in affected areas with the drugs used to cure it, the resistant strains to the drug develop in that area. Now when people become infected, the quality drugs used to fight it no longer work. This is a particular problem for the locals, as Westerners tend to use the better drugs as prophylactics, and leave the local people with nothing to fight the symptoms with.

I would recomend you talk to whoever gave you the Lariam and ask why daily Palludrine and weekly Chloroquin cannot be used, and even then, not for more than say 3 months.

And drinking while on prescription meds is usually a pretty stupid idea.

yes, listen to GC he's been there and look how that turned out, poor guy :(

Quote:

---

I can give you a good reason why the law was replealed. It allowed citizens of Belgium to sue people in other countries.

---

I can give you a reason why it's a shame this law was retracted:

Not killing masses of people should be law in all countries, so it shouldn't exactly matter where you go to court. If someone is cracking copyrighted material in a country where it isn't even illegal, he can be arrested and prosecuted upon entering another country where this law exists ( example: USA ). If someone is slaugthering thousands of people, being illegal probably everywhere in the world, he cannot be arrested and prosecuted in another country ( mostly by the wish of the US ). WTF ? How much of a hypocrite can a nationstate be ? This law wasn't retracted because it's unjust or problematic. It's a good law, prosecuting people for commiting genocide. It was retracted, because it didn't fit the US' view of the world. The big bully is stomping around again. Every state tries to protect it's citizens, but only the US manages to show such a lack of diplomacy.

::off-topic::
adrianxw i really appreciate it that you are concerned about me but the one that prescribed me those drugs was someone from the international tropical institute.... I know what the side-effects are: depression, bad vision,sleepless nights, cardiac arrests, blood circulation problems, dizzyness,paranoia, blurry sight, cramps,fever, headache etc ive got a list of all the side effects... But when it is advised by someone who is a real pro in this field i just follow the advice they give me.

I take it for prevention, although the doctor said that when i have a malaria attack i should take 3 of these pills a day (normally only 1 is allowed each week). And then you get all the side-effects but you just dont know wether its the malaria or the Lariam (wich is indeed that mefloquin thigie a pill of 250 mg) :s .

Oh and i'm feeling much better now the only thing i have is that i look at something and then it appears like there are some milliseconds being cut out its really strange and i just cant explain...

::on-topic::
Well i still cant come up with another decent reason why they abolished this law... i guess it was too much juristic and money-involved work to improve the law in total.
With improving the law i think about making the law so that the US wouldnt complain about it... (however that would make the US position of the world visible again, it would show that the US could do a lil bit more then the rest, wich is understandable if you know some history).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GanglyLamb
Not exactly, before you can sue someone with that law there has to be evidence (and if not the government investigates it), that the person in question did commit genocide or was involved with it.

::fictif thinking::
Its not like i say : "I sue ygfperson because he has been active in a movement that sprays graffiti all over town."
::::::::::::::::::::

---

You're avoiding my point. A person in one country should not be able to sue a person in another country for a crime which was not committed in the first country. If someone in the United States did commit genocide, another person in the US would have jurisdiction to sue him. (Unless one of the victims were a foreigner.)

Quote:

---

Not killing masses of people should be law in all countries, so it shouldn't exactly matter where you go to court.

---

I'm assuming the Not was a typo. Killing is illegal in pretty much all countries. (Unless you're the dictator... in which case you exempt yourself.)

Quote:

---

If someone is cracking copyrighted material in a country where it isn't even illegal, he can be arrested and prosecuted upon entering another country where this law exists ( example: USA ).

---

This is because of international laws against copyright infringement. If you want genocide illegal everywhere, get countries to come together to ban it jointly.

The other more practical reason why this law was removed was because people with no connection with genocide were being sued (President Bush, Rumsfield).

Quote:

---

connection with genocide were being sued (President Bush, Rumsfield).

---

They were held responsible for killing about 500 ppl that were in a supposed military underground facility ( happened in Iraq), and then some other things that happened to ppl during the First Gulf war...
Yeah i know, the US government probably didnt realised that there were civilians in this complex but still. If intelligence is wrong you are you gonna blame then... Its difficult to say you are responsible for this action when you are somewhere in a hierarchy (spelling ??).

Quote:

---

You're avoiding my point. A person in one country should not be able to sue a person in another country for a crime which was not committed in the first country. If someone in the United States did commit genocide, another person in the US would have jurisdiction to sue him. (Unless one of the victims were a foreigner.)

---

That's where I disagree. The first time the law was used (to my knowledge) was in a trial against 4 people from Rwanda. they would have never been trailed in there own country. So people from Rwanda sued them in Belgium and they were convicted. It's not because you can't be trailed in your own country, that you should get away with it. But the law backfired a bit and was abused by people.

Quote:

---

This is because of international laws against copyright infringement. If you want genocide illegal everywhere, get countries to come together to ban it jointly.

---

They did: The international war tribunal in Den Haag. But the US won't be part of that, why?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by maes
They did: The international war tribunal in Den Haag. But the US won't be part of that, why?

---

I don't know anything about that tribunal, so I can't really argue with you. But I do think the US has ignored potentially beneficial international efforts for stupid reasons. (Kyoto, child soldiers)

Quote:

---

This is because of international laws against copyright infringement. If you want genocide illegal everywhere, get countries to come together to ban it jointly.

---

I'm pretty sure there is an international law to prevent genocide. If there isn't, we should create one instead of bringing down a law that tries to achieve something.

>>I don't know anything about that tribunal, so I can't really argue with you.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...keeping.court/

Quote:

---

They did: The international war tribunal in Den Haag. But the US won't be part of that, why?

---

Quote:

---

What is the U.S. objection?

The United States, which signed the statute to create the court but never ratified it, is opposed to the ICC in part because it feels the treaty does not go far enough to avoid the risk of politically motivated prosecutions. It wants immunity for countries that are not party to the ICC but still contribute troops to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

---

That answers that question.

Quote:

---

The ICC will not supercede, but will complement national jurisdictions. National courts will continue to have priority in investigating and prosecuting crimes within their jurisdiction.

---

It's essentially a jurisdictional issue. Belgian laws shouldn't apply to another country, even if it's something as obviously wrong as genocide.

Quote:

---

we should create one instead of bringing down a law that tries to achieve something.

---

You can pass a law that requires all people to have read 12 books in order to become an adult. It may be well-intentioned. The world may be a better place if everyone did that. But it's still a bad law.

Quote:

---

It's essentially a jurisdictional issue. Belgian laws shouldn't apply to another country, even if it's something as obviously wrong as genocide.

---

Belgian law applies to anyone coming to Belgium. I don't see anything wrong with this. US law applies to anyone coming to the US, doesn't it ?

Quote:

---

You can pass a law that requires all people to have read 12 books in order to become an adult. It may be well-intentioned. The world may be a better place if everyone did that. But it's still a bad law.

---

Why should it be bad ? If it's a law in some imaginary country, you have two options: read the books, or stay out of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nvoigt
Why should it be bad ? If it's a law in some imaginary country, you have two options: read the books, or stay out of the country.

---

A law like that would violate people's rights. People should not be forced to leave a country if they can't conform to its standards. This is their home. A country's system of government should serve the people living in the country, not the people that government wishes lived there. (Of course, if it was truly an imaginary country, leaving wouldn't be a problem.)

Quote:

---

Belgian law applies to anyone coming to Belgium. I don't see anything wrong with this. US law applies to anyone coming to the US, doesn't it ?

---

Sorry, I was under the impression that this law allowed people to sue others who hadn't visited Belgium.

Quote:

---

A law like that would violate people's rights. People should not be forced to leave a country if they can't conform to its standards. This is their home. A country's system of government should serve the people living in the country, not the people that government wishes lived there. (Of course, if it was truly an imaginary country, leaving wouldn't be a problem.)

---

In Germany, murdering people is illegal. You have two choices: not murdering people, or leaving. ( Or get caught and convicted ). I don't think this violates any rights. You don't live by our standards, you better not live here.

Quote:

---

Sorry, I was under the impression that this law allowed people to sue others who hadn't visited Belgium.

---

Indeed. But how do you think will those people be prosecuted and convicted ? Belgian Foreign Legion going overseas ? If you get sued there, and enter the country, you get arrested. Pretty much the same thing the US does.

>They were held responsible for killing about 500 ppl that were in a supposed military underground facility ( happened in Iraq), and then some other things that happened to ppl during the First Gulf war...

This sort of thing is exactly what the US wants to prevent, and I think they are right to do so.

>Belgian law applies to anyone coming to Belgium. I don't see anything wrong with this. US law applies to anyone coming to the US, doesn't it ?

If it were just a matter of staying out of belgium to avoid the law, then Im sure those in the US government would just stay away. But since a new NATO headquarters is being build in Belgium, I think the US has a reason to address this law (since at some point US govt officials will have reason to visit belgium)

> [from CNN.com]
the law has since been used by human rights campaigners, political groups and others to file complaints against a series of international figures.

Thats what the US means by politically motivated.

>Why should it be bad ? If it's a law in some imaginary country, you have two options: read the books, or stay out of the country.

What about those that were already in the country. A law like that only serves the purpose to prevent certain groups (at least in environments where certain groups are much more likely not to have read 12 books) from being considered adults.

There were laws like that passed in the US after the civil war to prevent blacks from voting and hence having representation in government.

Until the US agrees to a level playing field, it is pointless debating issues like this. The US see's itself as above the level playing field, while expecting everyone else to aspire to that "same", (i.e. subordinate), level playing field.

<fx>Yawns and shrugs shoulders.</fx>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nvoigt
In Germany, murdering people is illegal. You have two choices: not murdering people, or leaving. ( Or get caught and convicted ). I don't think this violates any rights. You don't live by our standards, you better not live here.

---

A murder law doesn't violate people's rights, but some laws do. Those laws are bad laws. (Of course, what laws are bad laws are open to interpretation.) Not all standards should be enforced with a penalty of exile.

Quote:

---

Until the US agrees to a level playing field, it is pointless debating issues like this.

---

So what? Tell us what's on your mind, even if it is 'pointless'.

Quote:

---

The US see's itself as above the level playing field, while expecting everyone else to aspire to that "same", (i.e. subordinate), level playing field.

---

Why do you think this is?

Quote:

---

What about those that were already in the country. A law like that only serves the purpose to prevent certain groups (at least in environments where certain groups are much more likely not to have read 12 books) from being considered adults.

---

If the majority likes this law and considers it a good law, I don't see how it differs from having to be at least 18 to be considered an adult. To the contrary, 12 books is an achievement, not being 18 is discrimination, after all it's something you cannot change on your own, like your skin color.

Quote:

---

A murder law doesn't violate people's rights, but some laws do. Those laws are bad laws. (Of course, what laws are bad laws are open to interpretation.) Not all standards should be enforced with a penalty of exile.

---

I didn't mean exile as a punishment. I meant if a law exists, you can either comply to that law ( or still go against the law and get punished, not an option from my point of view ) or stay out of that community. Example: cprogramming does not tolerate warez. If someone likes to talk about warez, he will do this elsewhere or get punished here. Thats normal.

Some laws are unjust. I don't think a law against genocide belongs to this category.

Quote:

---

Why do you think this is?

---

Because the US does what any state does, trying to get the best for their citizens. However, the US simply sucks at diplomacy. And you cannot send troops into friendly countries even if you threatened to do so before ( Den Hague Tribunal ). So what is left at the moment is a bunch of ........ed of friends. And once in a while, you will need friends.

>>> Why do you think this is?

I think nv has answered that for me. He's right, a lot of people who have never had anti US feelings are starting to develop them.

The present regime is simply treading on too many peoples toes.

>If the majority likes this law and considers it a good law, I don't see how it differs from having to be at least 18 to be considered an adult. To the contrary, 12 books is an achievement, not being 18 is discrimination, after all it's something you cannot change on your own, like your skin color.

There is a big difference. Turning 18 will come in time, reading 12 books might not. After the US civil war, laws were passed that made it so you had to be literate and had to pay a voting tax to be able to vote, knowing good and well most blacks, newly freed slaves at the time, were illiterate and had little money. What those laws did was prevent blacks from getting representation and therefore equal rights.

There should be many more things considered in passing laws than just the majority thinking its good. And just because a law is good in principle, like the genocide law, doesnt make it a good law in practice.

Quote:

---

There should be many more things considered in passing laws than just the majority thinking its good. And just because a law is good in principle, like the genocide law, doesnt make it a good law in practice.

---

Right, but if the majority thinks its a good law but when the law is used it seems that something is lacking then there should be some improvement in this law. They should improve the law so that when it is used it still remains a good law where the majority supports it.

What the Belgian government did was just ,in my opinion, lame.
They found it too hard and too time expensive to improve this law, things like this need time because you will never know what problem you wil encounter, time will tell as you use this law.

Its like writing code, you compile but somehow theres this bug in, you just dont say lets start all over again, you first start looking for the bug. And when you really really cant find the bug anywhere you might consider writing the code from scratch....

@adrianxw check your PM's (im gonna PM you in a min)

Ganglylamb.